DVLA lose V5, charge me for failing to insure sold vehicle
Discussion
I'm no expert but if you have unequivocal evidence that you sold the car on X date and you are 100% sure you complied with the requirements of the V5 wrt change of ownership then i'd just take that with you and not bother with representation. But i'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tell me i'm wrong.
Presumably your mate to whom you sold the vehicle is prepared to appear as a witness for the defence.
Personally I would recommend representation as dealing with court procedures is best dealt with by a professional imho. Plus at some point cross examination will possibly be required, this is a skill not everyone possesses, witness numerous parliamentary select committee shambles.
If you and your representative can also arrange things to provide maximum embarrassment for the incompetent DVLA so much the better.
Personally I would recommend representation as dealing with court procedures is best dealt with by a professional imho. Plus at some point cross examination will possibly be required, this is a skill not everyone possesses, witness numerous parliamentary select committee shambles.
If you and your representative can also arrange things to provide maximum embarrassment for the incompetent DVLA so much the better.
Yes, no problem with him appearing as a witness.
I'm inclined to think that representation would be a good idea. Not that the facts don't speak for themselves but from experience in a situation involving small claims courts years ago, I know that I can find it hard to present information precisely and clearly when under duress. I tend to let opinion take share the stage with fact.
Next question, can anyone recommend anyone? I'm in Norwich but I've no idea where the proceedings will be heard.
I'm inclined to think that representation would be a good idea. Not that the facts don't speak for themselves but from experience in a situation involving small claims courts years ago, I know that I can find it hard to present information precisely and clearly when under duress. I tend to let opinion take share the stage with fact.
Next question, can anyone recommend anyone? I'm in Norwich but I've no idea where the proceedings will be heard.
Jim1556 said:
B'stard Child said:
Since continuous insurance SORN changes came into force.
Fair enough - I resent the fact I have to apply for SORN though. What's wrong with 'I'll tell you when it's back on the road, leave it SORNed til further notice!'?Taking DVLA logic to an extreme, it would be a difficult country to live in if we all had to write to a government agency to advise them that we are not going to commit burglary this week...... and if we forgot we'd then be locked up even though no offence was committed! Yes it's unreal, but DVLA are almost stating this scenario with SORN (although, of course, the offence isn't using an uninsured car, but failing to SORN the car. Smacks of big brother tactics.
For clarification, can I ask the legal guys here.... Where does Joe Public stand re Interpretation Act if he uses Royal Mail Confirmed Signed For service and has a signature implying DVLA have received the item? Would DVLA STILL say they haven't received it? Would it (their stance of non-receipt) hold up in court? I'd readily pay the extra £1.10 for peace-of-mind.
Can I come and watch the case? I'd love to see the DVLA get a bloody nose!
...hang on... why not invite the press to attend... If you have a purchasing witness that can confirm you did all that was said I can't believe any Mag would find against you... unless of course there is more to this than has been said here...
...hang on... why not invite the press to attend... If you have a purchasing witness that can confirm you did all that was said I can't believe any Mag would find against you... unless of course there is more to this than has been said here...
3Dee said:
Can I come and watch the case? I'd love to see the DVLA get a bloody nose!
...hang on... why not invite the press to attend... If you have a purchasing witness that can confirm you did all that was said I can't believe any Mag would find against you... unless of course there is more to this than has been said here...
I promise you, as I have explained to Loon R1 several times, there is NOTHING omitted. Everything I've written here is precisely what happened....hang on... why not invite the press to attend... If you have a purchasing witness that can confirm you did all that was said I can't believe any Mag would find against you... unless of course there is more to this than has been said here...
I've written to the Secretary of State for Transport and once I have the court dates through I'll let the press know too.
Phil303 said:
I promise you, as I have explained to Loon R1 several times, there is NOTHING omitted. Everything I've written here is precisely what happened.
I've written to the Secretary of State for Transport and once I have the court dates through I'll let the press know too.
Good on you Phil(?)...I've written to the Secretary of State for Transport and once I have the court dates through I'll let the press know too.
Just try not to let it get you down...
Phil303 said:
Car was sold in early March as we were right on the cusp of moving home a few weeks later, so in all the excitement that packing and unpacking brings I'd hadn't given the DVLA another thought with regards chasing them up and making sure they were capable of doing their job properly.
......
I'm pretty laid back but the one thing guaranteed to bring out the fight in me is being blamed and possibly punished for something that is not my fault.
It is your fault. It tells you on the slip to look out for the acknowledgement and to chase it up if not received within 4 weeks. You didn't do that.......
I'm pretty laid back but the one thing guaranteed to bring out the fight in me is being blamed and possibly punished for something that is not my fault.
Sheepshanks said:
Phil303 said:
Car was sold in early March as we were right on the cusp of moving home a few weeks later, so in all the excitement that packing and unpacking brings I'd hadn't given the DVLA another thought with regards chasing them up and making sure they were capable of doing their job properly.
......
I'm pretty laid back but the one thing guaranteed to bring out the fight in me is being blamed and possibly punished for something that is not my fault.
It is your fault. It tells you on the slip to look out for the acknowledgement and to chase it up if not received within 4 weeks. You didn't do that.......
I'm pretty laid back but the one thing guaranteed to bring out the fight in me is being blamed and possibly punished for something that is not my fault.
DVLA said:
4. Uninsured vehicles
Rules in England, Wales and Scotland
You must have motor insurance for your vehicle if you use it on roads and in public places.
You do not need to insure your vehicle if it is kept off the road and declared as off the road (SORN). This rule is called ‘continuous insurance enforcement’.
If not, you could:
get a fixed penalty of £100
have your vehicle wheel-clamped, impounded or destroyed
face a court prosecution, with a possible maximum fine of £1,000
It doesn’t matter who is driving the car - if you’re the registered keeper, you could get penalised.
Can you get a copy of the Registration Doc now saying change of keeper 28th Feb?Rules in England, Wales and Scotland
You must have motor insurance for your vehicle if you use it on roads and in public places.
You do not need to insure your vehicle if it is kept off the road and declared as off the road (SORN). This rule is called ‘continuous insurance enforcement’.
If not, you could:
get a fixed penalty of £100
have your vehicle wheel-clamped, impounded or destroyed
face a court prosecution, with a possible maximum fine of £1,000
It doesn’t matter who is driving the car - if you’re the registered keeper, you could get penalised.
The fine is levied for June - You weren't the registered keeper at the time of the fine - you cannot be responsible for the insurance on the vehicle
Timsta said:
It can say what it likes. It's not a legal requirement.
Would have saved the OP a lot of hassle if he'd followed the simple guidance though.Who can say it's the DVLAs fault? Perhaps it got lost in the post, perhaps someone set fire to the post box. Maybe the OP gave the letter to someone who lost it and doesn't want to admit it.
Invent your own scenario - there's plenty of things that can go wrong, but when the DVLA is such a known problem area, it's a bit bonkers not to keep an eye out for the acknowledgement.
Sheepshanks: As has been stated, it's not a legal requirement. 4 weeks after the sale was precisely when I was moving house and subsequently not ideal circumstances to start contacting the DVLA telling them how to do their job. It's not an excuse but a mitigating factor and I was not breaking any law by not contacting them. They've said on the phone if the fine was issued after they were aware of the change then it still stands. My argument was that it's not my fault that it took them 6 months to process. If they or the Royal Mail sat on it, how am I liable?
The new V5 has the change recorded as the 28 Feb so from that point on I am not liable for the vehicle as I am not the registered keeper. The DVLA got round to processing it in August but my legal obligations were fulfilled in February.
All of this is irrelevant as the car has been insured all the time anyway.
The new V5 has the change recorded as the 28 Feb so from that point on I am not liable for the vehicle as I am not the registered keeper. The DVLA got round to processing it in August but my legal obligations were fulfilled in February.
All of this is irrelevant as the car has been insured all the time anyway.
The change of Registered Keeper is possibly a red herring. The relevant statute is here:
In that case, it doesn't matter who the Registered Keeper was at the material time when considering whether the car was insured for the purposes of the Act.
Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
144A Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements
(1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—
(a)it is covered by a such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b)either of the following conditions is satisfied.
...
(4)The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy or security because—
(a)the policy or security covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the policy or security or in the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, and
(b)the vehicle is owned by that person.
...
If your friend has a policy that insures him for what is effectively 'any vehicle', he is named on the policy and he owns the vehicle, then no offence is committed. Confusion may reign here where 'Registered Keeper' is confused with 'Owner'. You will note they are treated as different things by the legislation above.(1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—
(a)it is covered by a such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b)either of the following conditions is satisfied.
...
(4)The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy or security because—
(a)the policy or security covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the policy or security or in the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, and
(b)the vehicle is owned by that person.
...
In that case, it doesn't matter who the Registered Keeper was at the material time when considering whether the car was insured for the purposes of the Act.
Phil303 said:
The new V5 has the change recorded as the 28 Feb so from that point on I am not liable for the vehicle as I am not the registered keeper. The DVLA got round to processing it in August but my legal obligations were fulfilled in February.
Surely a done deal then - You aren't liable. I don't see how they can argue this one (Although they probably will 
)I've been saying this all along, but we keep being steered back to RK / owner by the OP. This is despite him being certain that his friend can prove the car was insured.
I remain less than convinced that his friend insured the car correctly. "Any vehicle" is not a modern motor trade policy. They need to list each and every vehicle and often exclude SD&P for personal vehicles. As the OP clearly states that his friends wife will be driving the car as her own personal transport and therefore not connected to the business then this is where his problem is.
I remain less than convinced that his friend insured the car correctly. "Any vehicle" is not a modern motor trade policy. They need to list each and every vehicle and often exclude SD&P for personal vehicles. As the OP clearly states that his friends wife will be driving the car as her own personal transport and therefore not connected to the business then this is where his problem is.
tenpenceshort said:
If your friend has a policy that insures him for what is effectively 'any vehicle', he is named on the policy and he owns the vehicle, then no offence is committed. Confusion may reign here where 'Registered Keeper' is confused with 'Owner'. You will note they are treated as different things by the legislation above.
In that case, it doesn't matter who the Registered Keeper was at the material time when considering whether the car was insured for the purposes of the Act.
Good point well made. It can be shown he owned and insured the vehicle.In that case, it doesn't matter who the Registered Keeper was at the material time when considering whether the car was insured for the purposes of the Act.
tenpenceshort said:
In that case, it doesn't matter who the Registered Keeper was at the material time when considering whether the car was insured for the purposes of the Act.
Agreed that it doesn't matter who the RK was in determining whether an offence was committed.However, the OP has two possible defences:
1. No offence was committed;
2. If an offence was committed, it was not committed by him.
If he can demonstrate either of those things, he is home and dry. That leaves the question of whether the RK at the time of the alleged offence is:
a. the person who was recorded as such at the time; or
b. the person whom the DVLA now records as being the RK at the time.
LoonR1 said:
I've been saying this all along, but we keep being steered back to RK / owner by the OP. This is despite him being certain that his friend can prove the car was insured.
I remain less than convinced that his friend insured the car correctly. "Any vehicle" is not a modern motor trade policy. They need to list each and every vehicle and often exclude SD&P for personal vehicles. As the OP clearly states that his friends wife will be driving the car as her own personal transport and therefore not connected to the business then this is where his problem is.
Despite the opening post clearly stating that the buyer added it to his policy so it would be shown on mid.I remain less than convinced that his friend insured the car correctly. "Any vehicle" is not a modern motor trade policy. They need to list each and every vehicle and often exclude SD&P for personal vehicles. As the OP clearly states that his friends wife will be driving the car as her own personal transport and therefore not connected to the business then this is where his problem is.
In which case it's the buyer's problem if he didn't add it correctly.
FiF said:
Despite the opening post clearly stating that the buyer added it to his policy so it would be shown on mid.
In which case it's the buyer's problem if he didn't add it correctly.
And he can say it all he likes but as I know the process inside out, then I know for a fact that a car on MID can not show as uninsured as MID is the database that's checked for uninsured vehicles. In which case it's the buyer's problem if he didn't add it correctly.
The Whole process is administered by the MIB who own the MID, not DVLA.
Cars are cross checked for insurance. It matters by who has insured it as long as it is insured. If showing as uninsured then the RK gets a letter.
So logic says that the OP's friend didn't correctly log it on MID. Relying on a vague "I'm covered for any car on my trade policy" won't work as an excuse any more for the reasons I've stated above.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff